Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 560 A2D 342 - Stanzler v. Stanzler

Stanzler v. Stanzler’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2018

16 state decisions

1001989199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Perreault v. Perreault · Casey v. Casey · D'Agostino v. D'Agostino · Wordell v. Wordell · Lancellotti v. Lancellotti

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is well established that the intent of property division is to provide a fair and just assignment of the marital assets. * * * Property division, however, does not require an equal division of the property, * * * and is subject to the concept that nonmonetary, as well as monetary, contributions may enhance the marital partnership. * * * Finally we note that a trial justice’s assignment of property will not be overturned unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In addition to or in lieu of an order to pay alimony made pursuant to a complaint for divorce, the court may assign to either the husband or wife a portion of the estate of the other. In determining the nature and value of the property, if any, to be assigned, the court after hearing the witnesses, if any, of each party shall consider the length of the marriage, the conduct of the parties during the marriage, and the contribution of each of the parties in the acquisition, preservation, or appreciation in value of their respective estates, and the contribution and services of either party as a homemaker. The court may not assign property or an interest therein held in the name of one of the parties if the property was held by the party prior to the marriage, but may assign income which has been derived therefrom during the term of the marriage and the court may assign the appreciation of value from the date of the marriage of property or an interest therein which was held in the name of one party prior to the marriage which increased in value as a result of the efforts of either spouse during the marriage. The court also shall not assign property or an interest therein which has been transferred to one of the parties by inheritance before, during, or after the term of the marriage. The court shall not assign property or an interest therein which has been transferred to one of the parties by gift from a third party before, during, or after the term of the marriage.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “forced share.” 2 . General Laws 1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 15-5-16.1, as amended by P.L.1986, eh. 484, § 1 provides in part:”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.